Here’s the TV ad released by the RPV to blackmail Gov. Kaine into signing the Transportation Compromise bill (AKA: Bill Howell’s Tax Increase). For a party that preaches accountability and responsibility, the many half-truths and lies in this ad are simply abhoring.
-
RPV Propaganda
-
The Single Object Rule
I’m glad to be back blogging on BR! It’s a time consuming process, but I missed being away. Thank you Jim for inviting me to re-join the premier blog on VA politics.
A lot has been written about the GOP Transportation Compromise that squeaked through the State Senate on a 21 to 19 vote. Jim Bacon called it “Transportation Abomination.” I prefer referring to it as “Bill Howell’s Tax Increase,” but the discussion on taxes will have to come later.
In the meantime, I have yet to see any in-depth analysis of some of the provisions called for in this bill, particularly some legal issues that arise from this legislation and the manner in which it was packaged into one mammoth bill.
Article IV, Section 12 of the Virginia Constitution addresses the “Form of Laws.” It states:
No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title. Nor shall any law be revived or amended with reference to its title, but the act revived or the section amended shall be reenacted and published at length.
Speaker Bill Howell, the patron of HB3202, has tried to explain away this requirement by saying that its single object is “congestion mitigation.” But the Constitution requires that the one object behind the bill be expressed in its title.
The title of HB 3202 has nothing to do with congestion mitigation—it doesn’t even mention the word congestion. The bill’s title is: “Transportation funding; authority to certain localities to impose additional fees therefor [sic], report.”
So what is the single object that this bill embraces? There are so many parts to this bill one is hard pressed to summarize them all. It purports to do a little of everything, such as raising taxes, promoting an efficiency study, calling for economic development, increasing traffic fines, granting new taxing authorities to localities, and the list goes on…
I don’t mean to be presumptuous or give Gov. Kaine any ideas, but the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) is trying to make an issue if the Governor amends or vetoes the transportation compromise bill. Instead, all Gov. Kaine has to do, is return the bill back to the legislature since it fails to meet the single object rule as required by our Constitution. That will deflate the PRV’s bubble and will expose Bill Howell’s Tax Increase for what it really is—an abomination!
In any case, even if the governor does not read the BR blog, I’m certain that certain patriots are standing in the wings and plan to challenge the constitutionality of this bill in the courts. It is indeed mind-boggling, that Virginia’s law and order party consistently manages to come up with bills that are designed to evade or outright ignore basic legal and constitutional requirements.
More on additional legal issues with this bill in my next post.
-
NEWS OF THE DAY
For those still at sea over Kelo v. City of New London and eminent domain, The Lincoln Land of Land Policy has a nice, evenhanded item titled “Squaring the Eminent Domain Circle: A new Approach to Land Assembly Problems ” at
http://lincolninst.edu/pubs/PubDetail.aspx?pubid=1188I am behind in reading. This was published in “Land Lines” in January but it is worth digging up if you missed it.
The article recognizes the need for land assembly to evolve more functional settlement patterns and the concern of legitimate property rights well as the real dangers of land speculation. There is a nice picture of Susette Kelo, a reprint of the picture of WaPo picture of Architect Sprigg’s holdout and a site plan for the Fort Trumbull redevelopment.
For the record: The Fort Trumbull plan is a disaster and it is not worth taking down an outhouse to build. It is an autonomobility fostering abomination. There are many 50s and 60 Urban Renewal plans that are superior, it fact this looks just like one of them. But that is another story.
What I really like about the article is that is advocates a variation on the process we designed 20 years ago to insure equity is served in Subdivision Recycling processes such at that which has been at the heart of a lot of RB projects and of METRO West. We outline this strategy in “The Shape of the Future.”
In other, more current news check out the Affordable and Accessible Crisis story that Jim features in “The New Homeless” but do not miss the story in WaPo Business on Alan Greenspan. (He foresees the possibility of a recession by fall.)
All of those who have been championing Business-As-Usual and glorifying the “Capital Accumulation” of a Winner Take All Economy that leads to Mass Over-Consumption get out your apron and be ready to man the soup kitchen. Autonomobiles and home building are not likely to pull us out of this one. We have no built ourselves into such unsustainable settlement patterns that a lot, if not all of us, are going to be hurt.
Yes Tobias, Jingoistic bragging and international advertising that promotes an Over-Consumptive lifestyle in the US of A has induced a lot to migrate. On that score see the current “Unte Reader’s” collection of articles on Illegal Immigrant Slavery.
Lets see, we have the Access and Mobility Crisis, the Affordable and Accessible Housing Crisis, the Illegal Immigrant Crisis, the War(s) in the Middle East, …
Did someone say the stock market went go down this morning? Where Oh Where can someone get a decent return on their gambling / speculation? Real estate is rotten, now stocks, what next? The NCAA tournament is near, perhaps you can score the winning bracket.
Have a Nice Day :>)
EMR
-
The New Homeless
A disturbing phenomenon in Northern Virginia: sky-high rental prices plus short-term contract work equals homeless people.
These homeless aren’t schizophrenics, they aren’t drug addicts, and they aren’t single mothers on welfare. They’re working, middle-class Americans. Christopher L. Jenkins has the story in the Washington Post.
-
More Ignorance from the WaPo Editorial Team
In the place of offering any constructive proposals for addressing Virginia’s transportation problems, the Washington Post editorial writers insist upon playing the anti-RoVa card. Here is the lede of today’s editorial:
After all the fuss and shouting about a grand statewide transportation funding plan, here is what the legislative powers in Richmond have decided to pay for each year to relieve the beleaguered commuters of Northern Virginia: half of one highway interchange, or the equivalent thereof.
As for any further improvements to Northern Virginia’s jammed roadways, the legislature has said the region is welcome to tax itself.
Despite “Republican propaganda” of raising $1.5 billion a year to spend on roads under the legislative package it crafted, the Post opines, the state would send Northern Virginia only $54 million for new road construction a year. The bulk of the new funds for the region would come from taxes that Northern Virginia imposes on itself. Says the WaPo: Gov. Timothy M. Kaine needs to amend the bill, insisting upon a “more robust state funding component so that the burden of improving Northern Virginia’s transportation network does not fall so overwhelmingly on the region itself. “
Somehow, in the WaPo mythology, the inequitable allocation of transportation dollars is all the fault of evil Republicans. Time for a reality check: The allocation of state transportation dollars is determined by a complex formula that was last updated (as memory serves, please correct me if I’m wrong) in 1986 as part of Gov. Gerald L. Baliles’ overhaul of Virginia’s transportation funding. The legislature back then was controlled by Democrats. Baliles was (and is) a Democrat. Back in 1986, before two intervening censuses and redistrictings, the General Assembly had more rural representation than it does now. The allocation formula was designed, in large measure, to protect rural interests.
The GOP Compromise would circumvent the state transportation funding formula: The estimated $400 million raised by Northern Virginia taxpayers for a regional transportation authority would all stay in Northern Virginia. Greedy downstate leeches would get none of it.
If the Washington Post pundits could rise above its Manichean worldview that casts downstate and conservative Republicans as the source of all evil , they might realize that the GOP package is probably the best deal that NoVa can get. The only alternatives are (1) to funnel new taxes through the old transportation funding formula, in which case NoVa would get hosed, or (2) turn the distribution of funds into a wide-open pork-fest where money flows into districts whose representatives have the most political clout — in which case NoVa would get hosed.
If the WaPo editorialistas were interested in getting more money for NoVa rather than blindly flaying its partisan antagonists, they would support the GOP package. If that were too bitter a pill to swallow, they would recommend restructuring the state transportation funding formula to be more favorable to urban/suburban interests.
Of course, in the absence of Fundamental Change, dumping more money into Northern Virginia road and transit projects won’t help congestion relief. The GOP plan is gravely flawed, though not for reasons comprehensible to the Washington Post. But expecting the WaPo to achieve that level of understanding is like teaching quantum physics to an algebra drop-out. For right now, I would be grateful if the WaPo pundits would simply grasp the most basic facts of Virginia government instead of spewing nonsense.
-
Mo’ Money for Education: How Much is Enough?
The GOP transportation package has severe deficiencies that warrant chopping off its head and mounting it on a spike, but the notion purveyed by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and others that it would short-change Virginia’s school children is not one of them. The Fairfax County Taxpayers Alliance has produced the following chart that compares K-12 spending, adjusted for inflation, to school enrollment.
Does anyone seriously think that dumping more money into this system will improve it? C’mon. Get real. The problem is that our educational system, like our transportation/land use system, is a relic of a past era that can not keep up with the demands of a fast-changing, globally competitive Knowledge Economy. Education, too, needs Fundamental Change.
-
Ballston on a Half Shell
It just seems like common sense: If you cram more offices and housing into a place, you’ll get more people, more traffic and more congestion. That’s the sentiment animinating the opposition to increased density in Tysons Corner.
But common sense isn’t always right. In an example of the kind of reporting we should see more of, the Washington Post illuminates the Tysons Corner debate in a Feb. 18 article by looking at the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor in Arlington. The surge in development along the Corridor, which is served by METRO, has produced relatively little extra automobile traffic. Skeptics respond that Tysons is different from Arlington: Increasing density, even if the METRO is built, will not have the same impact.
True, Tysons is different. It may present special challenges. That just means they the County will have to work at it — just like Arlington did. The Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor did not just emerge like Venus on the half-shell. Arlington has worked tirelessly for decades to make its METRO Corridor work. Says the Post:
It took Arlington decades, they said, to draw up plans, win support from nearby residents and then attract the kind of development they were hoping for.
Winning local support was achieved, officials said, only after countless meetings and pledges that Arlington would stick to a “bull’s-eye” approach, limiting the tallest buildings to a quarter-mile radius from rail stations and not encroaching on neighborhoods. To keep up support over time, the county instituted parking limits and traffic-calming methods on nearby streets.
Employees and residents in the corridor are encouraged to stay out of their cars through parking limits, transit subsidies, a county bus system, bike paths and pedestrian-friendly street designs. The county has the advantage of having control over the design of its secondary streets, an authority that in most Virginia counties is held by the state.
“It’s not just one policy but a whole series of things,” said Dennis Leach, the county’s transportation chief. “This is not something you do overnight. Arlington’s been at this 30 years, and not everything’s perfect. We have a lot more to do.”
There are no simple solutions. There are no painless remedies. Devising functional land use patterns and transportation systems will take unstinting effort. But the end result is a system that does work. What we have now will never work, no matter how much money we dump into it.
(Hat tip to Nova MiddleMan for bringing this article to my attention.)
-
Knowledge is (Electric) Power
Soaring demand for electricity in Northern Virginia is driving Dominion’s plans to build new transmission lines, submit to partial re-regulation, and embark upon construction of billions of dollars worth of new coal- and nuclear-powered generating plants. What would happen if future demand didn’t materialize as quickly as Dominion anticipated?
It’s well worth scrutinizing Dominion’s forecasts of electricity consumption. Are its forecasts simple extrapolations of past trends, or do they anticipate the changing economic landscape? I ask because we cannot assume that demand, especially in high-tech Northern Virginia, will continue to increase as it has in the past.
“Global electricity consumption by servers and ancillary equipment doubled between 2000 and 2004, estimated Jonathan Koomey, a staff scientst at Lawrence Berkely National Laboratory,” states an article in the Wall Street Journal today. But the computer sector is moving aggressively to curtail consumption. If Dominion extrapolates a continuation of the 2000-2005 trend, it may be overshooting the actual demand for electricity in the future.
Green Grid, a tech-industry consortium from California, was created to address the increasing power consumption of server systems and the data centers that use them. (Northern Virginia has a dozen or more of these server farms.) An immediate goal is to devise standard measures of power efficiency in computer rooms, thus eliminating a major obstacle to new energy-efficiency initiatives. One industry initiative, 80 Plus, focuses on the devices that convert alternating current into the direct current used by most computing equipment. The goal is to boost efficiency from 70 percent to 80 percent. The WSJ also reports that ColdWatt inc. is announcing a line of server power supplies that generate less heat and cut total server power consumption by 30 percent. Furthermore, as noted previously on this blog, Intel is rolling out a new, energy-efficient microchip this year.
Maybe Dominion is taking this entrepreneurial ferment into account with its forecasts, maybe it isn’t. But I am dubious that the policy makers who are rushing Dominion’s re-regulation bill into law know the answer. If Dominion’s forecasts are way off… if demand falls far short of projections… who picks up the bill under re-regulation for Dominion’s over-investment in electric capacity? The rate payers. If the people representing the rate payers aren’t probing aggressively into Dominion’s projections, they need to be. Knowledge is power.
-
The New Plan for Williamsburg: Density in the Right Places
How much density in a location like the historic core of Williamsburg is the right amount? City fathers are grappling with that question as they update their comprehensive plan. Proposed changes would yield an estimated 100 to 150 new dwelling units, which would translate into the addition of some 300 new residents.
Predictably, opposition has surfaced. Some residents are concerned that more houses will ruin the city’s appearance. I’m a big fan of downtown Williamsburg, and as a semi-frequent visitor would hate the historic district to lose its distinctive character. But I also acknowledge that communities must evolve to prosper. As long as the new buildings are not jarring or disruptive, increased density is probably a good thing.
The Daily Press makes a good case in support of higher density:
Density is not, in and of itself, bad. It adds energy to community life. It brings customers for local businesses, helping maintain a lively mix of restaurants and shops and services. It adds taxpayers to the local rolls. It adds the eyes and pedestrians that keep public spaces safe. It’s a more efficient way to deliver services. By clustering residents close to the services and jobs they need, it means that at least some of life’s business can be done without driving, and that cuts down on gas consumption and pollution. All those good things feed on themselves, drawing more people who want that kind of convenient, satisfying life.
All of which can also help prevent the all-too-common bane of small towns: declining neighborhoods, shuttered business, neglected public spaces, fleeing taxpayers. And it can avert sprawl – with its consequences for the environment and the way people live.
The danger isn’t density, but the wrong density in the wrong place – like a high-rise apartment building on Prince George Street. Or detached, single-family homes where three-story live-aboves are better suited. Or restrictions that interfere with the natural order of town life.
Remember, the antidote to suburban sprawl (scattered, disconnected, low-density development) is not anti-growth controls in fast-growth counties, but creating the conditions for core jurisdictions to rejuvenate themselves. For every family that loves living in a cul-de-sac subdivision, there’s another family that lives there only because there aren’t enough quality urban places with character and charm, like Williamsburg, to live. The marketplace would support considerable in-fill and re-development if only local governments would let it.
-
Chairman of the RPV Hears Hampton Republicans
Chairman of the RPV, Ed Gillespie, motored a long way for the Hampton Republican Committee fellowship breakfast on Sat. 24 Feb. He had to hurry home for his daughter’s basketball game. It was a long round trip to hear voices he, apparently, hasn’t heard in
The whole time was very Tidewater. Respectful. Polite. Closing with a standing ovation. Yet, it showed some of the fault lines across the General Assembly, the Party and The People. It exposed some of the political thinking which may make the Republican Party the minority party across the Commonwealth soon enough.
Gillespie talked about winning the ‘grand slam’ of ‘07, ‘08, ‘09 elections and controlling re-districting in ‘10. He mentioned the Virginia Republican Creed’s principles of limited government and lower taxes. Then, he praised the Republican ‘compromise’ Transportation bill as a contrast to what the Democrats would do and the absence of action from Democrat Gov. Kaine.
Then, the questions began. No one is buying the Party line. No one in that room.
The starkest comment was a fellow who said, essentially, “Quit threatening us with the Democrats. It’s not going to work. It’s not going to work with the voters.”
The other comments ranged from sending a message to Sen. John Warner to support the war or don’t run again, to get the National Park Service involved in the
The comments on what I call the ’07 Transportation Tax Panic criticized the pouring concrete that won’t reduce congestion, failure to add to the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel and several comments about unelected Regional Governments we rejected TWICE before and that the Republican bill violated the very principles Gillespie had lauded. All said kindly, but firmly.The Republican ‘stra-tege-ery’ emerged as this – in my words:
The plan saves Republican seats in NoVa because the GOP did something on transportation. Now, any failure to pass a plan can be blamed on the Democrats.
Furthermore, the bill requires the cities and counties to raise the taxes ($209m in year One in Hampton Roads), so they will be blamed for raising taxes, not Republicans. In fact, it creates an opportunity for Republicans to run Conservative candidates in cities and counties to NOT raise the taxes and create unelected, unaccountable Regional Governments the Republicans put in the compromise bill.
(When I told my apolitical, school counselor wife this, she said, “What? Say that again.” “Okay, dear. The Republicans in
In ’02 the Republicans – same cast of characters in the Caucus – passed the buck to the voters. In ’04 the RINOs raised taxes with the Dems. Now in ‘07, the Caucus passed the buck to the cities and counties.
It shows the fundamental relationship of power and divisions across the Commonwealth. The Party doesn’t deliver the money or the votes that gets politicians elected. Party discipline is a wet noodle (see what the 28th State District decides on Monday about His Lordship Sir John Chichester). The Party faithful who are useful fools and loyal eunuchs are patronized with the modest petting they require to prop up politicians at election time.
When a Republican candidate says, “Liberal! Liberal!”, and the Democrats and MSM say not so (the truth doesn’t matter) – and the Republican doesn’t provide reasons to vote FOR him, then the GOP loses. When the GOP raises taxes or insults the voters by not listening to their NO votes on Regional Governments, etc. the base of loyal Party voters bleeds.
-
FURTHER RESPONSE TO BUBBERELLA
In further response to Bubberella’s question under the Saturday 24 February post “Billions for Transportation – But How Much for Congestion Relief?”
It should be clear that the positions held by frequent BaconsRebellion contributors cover a broad range, and do not represent just one perspective. Here is a quick review:
EMR admits to holding down the True Conservative / Conservation / Science-Based Reality end of the spectrum.
Moving away from this anchor are more traditional conservation-oriented positions held by those who agree on many of the basic realities but fear that strongly advocating the transformations needed to achieve Fundamental Change will require them to give up some or all of what they have inherited and/or worked hard to achieve.
Next come a range of Centrists who see a stronger roll for government actions to achieve Balanced Communities in sustainable New Urban Regions.
These three categories represent the interests of about 80 percent of the population. See the 20% / 60% / 20% Guideline.
Beyond the Centrists are the Left WingNuts who vacation in Cuba and have recently bought stock in Citco.
Beyond the Left WingNuts near the bleeding edge are the Right WingNuts.
Right WingNuts are very vocal and occupy the majority of the space on most open fora. Here are some of their favorite positions:
Right WingNuts favor small government unless governmental expansion comes during Elephant Clan administrations. Most favor no government action except that which benefits the very wealthy.
Right WingNuts believe that accelerating Capital Accumulation for the benefit of a few does not threaten democracy and a market economy. They do what they can to support Mass Over-Consumption and thus hasten the slide toward entropy and Collapse.
Right WingNuts take positions favoring Business-As-Usual because they benefit, hope to benefit or recognize that fellow Right WingNuts and other Business-As-Usual advocates make the majority of the contributions supporting the current political party Duopoly.
Right Wing Nuts love to win and do not believe there is a need for a balance between personal rights and public responsibilities to maintain a democracy with a market economy.
Some Right WingNuts are said to hunt small animals with assault weapons. That fascination with firepower is reflected in their posts.
Finally there is one last group: The True WingNuts who have no moral or philosophical rudder right or left. This is a small fraction of participants but they devalue everyone’s views.
True WingNuts live under the assumption that “I live in a human settlement pattern and so I am an expert.” They structure their posts to obscure their true intent, what ever that is.
True WingNuts have no compunction about insulting the intelligence of readers by twisting comments and using misleading words to make what seem like rational points. We cite two examples from the above noted string which are the reason for posting this comment:
“… but the best evidence we have is that transit really works cost efficiently (and envirionmentally (sic) efficiently) for only around 2% of the population.”
The 2 percent is a low ball figure for the number of vehicle trips in a region that are taken on shared-vehicles vis private vehicles. If one considers peak hour vehicle trips the number goes up by a factor of 5 in regions with threshold shared-vehicle system efficiency.
If one considers the number of peak-hour trips where the origin and destination of the trip is within walking distance of a shared-vehicle station the number goes up by a factor of 4 more.
If one understands that the role of shared-vehicle systems is to support settlement patterns where citizens do not need to resort to any vehicle to access many of the elements of a quality life, the numbers are overwhelming in favor of implementation of shared-vehicle systems to provide citizens with mobility and access.
Or try this:
“since shared vehicle systems have an average speed half of that supported by the automobile.”
If one considers Autonomobile travel times in origin and destination rich places served by an efficient transit system the statement is absurd.
On a region-wide basis for the average 10 trips per household per day we know of no data that supports this assumption. The only data we have seen is that a careful cataloguing of trip speed for intra-New Urban Region travel puts the Autonomobile very close to shared-vehicle speed even in areas where there is little or no congestion.
Just as there are no Alpha Communities in the US of A, there are not New Urban Regions with a pattern and density of land use that would support efficient use of a creative mix of shared vehicle systems.
The amazing thing is that in some True WingNut comments two out of three sentences contain this sort of misinformation. One out of three is well founded or congratulates another poster to gain support for unfounded positions.
EMR
-
Three Reasons Not to Slit Our Wrists
While I am despondent about the passage of the GOP transportation-financing package, there are shreds of consolation from the General Assembly, and Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has enumerated three of them in a Saturday press release touting his legislative successes. They are:
SB1181: Subdivision Streets
Patron: Martin E. Williams, R-Newport News
Strengthens standards for accepting subdivision streets into the state system by increasing connectivity standards for roads and subdivisions. Basic connectivity enhances the overall capacity and efficiency of the transportation network and reduces congestion on major arterials by providing alternative routes for local trips.HB 2228, SB 1312: Access Management
Patrons: Del. Leo C. Wardrup, R-Virginia Beach, Sen. Charles B. Hawkins, R-Chatham
Promotes traffic flow and interconnectivity on the state’s road system, ensuring that new and existing roadways are not degraded by the creation of too many and poorly spaced intersections, turn lanes, median breaks, and other impediments.HB2163, SB1144: Incident Management
Patrons: Del. Shannon R. Valentine, D-Lynchburg, Sen. Frank W. Wagner, R-Virginia Beach
Allows VDOT vehicles to participate in clearing cars and restoring traffic flow after an accident, improving response time.Each of these bills is worthwhile, and each will make an incremental improvement to ameliorating traffic congestion. They constitute worthwhile first steps down the long road to land use reform. Let us hope, however, that lawmakers don’t declare victory and move on.
-
What’s Tim Kaine’s Next Move?
So… the GOP compromise on transportation has won approval in both the Senate and House of Delegates. The bill now goes to Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, who has expressed major reservations about it. In a press release yesterday, he stated:
When the final conference report on a long-term revenue package for transportation was developed, too few people were involved, and as a result, the bill on its way to my desk is not only insufficient to address Virginia’s needs, but contains numerous issues to address. I will use the 30 days between now and the reconvened session on April 4 to consult with legislators, local elected officials, and other stakeholders to fix the problems in the bill and reach a comprehensive, long-term, and statewide transportation solution.
I’m not familiar enough with the legislative process to know what leverage, other than threatening to veto the bill, the Governor has to tinker with the legislation at this point.
Whatever procedural influence he may have, it seems clear that the Governor has lost much of his political leverage. His call earlier this year to take the transportation issue to the people in the fall elections now rings hollow. Despite long odds, Republicans shed their differences to pass a far-reaching piece of legislation. Between taxes, fees, bonds and penalties, they will throw even more money at transportation than Kaine would have in $1 billion-a-year plan. Furthermore, GOP passed their bill with a measure of bipartisan support. While six Republicans in both chambers voted against it, 13 Democrats voted in favor.
If Kaine vetoes the transportation financing bill, he will be the obstructionist. He will be the one who prevented what Speaker William J. Howell calls Virginia’s “best chance” to address the transportation crisis. Kaine can point out all sorts of problems with the bill, but his job in persuading the public, which is not particularly attentive to arcane policy details, will be rendered far more difficult.
Is the financing piece of the GOP compromise an abomination? In my mind, it certainly is. Is the idea of empowering opaque and unaccountable regional authorities a potential disaster in the making? Absolutely. But the GOP has the “Big Mo” now. I will be most interested to see what the Governor’s next move is.
-
Billions for Transportation — but How Much for Congestion Relief?
The Hampton Roads chapter of the Axis of Taxes is riding the wave of public frustration with traffic congestion to generate public support for higher regional taxes and big regional road projects. But two of the biggest projects topping the list of regional priorities — the Third Crossing and the U.S. 460 upgrade — won’t address traffic congestion at all: They are economic development projects. The purpose of this post is not to denigrate the economic development potential of either project — that’s an entirely separate issue — but to point out that many citizens in Hampton Roads are likely to be quite unhappy if they find themselves $200 million a year lighter in their wallets and still stuck in traffic.
A number of this blog’s readers have been making that very argument in the comments section. But the point was really driven home by numbers cited in a press release issued by the Coalition for Smarter Growth. Describing the U.S. 460 project as “a symbol of waste and misplaced priorities in our transportation program,” Executive Director Stewart Schwartz writes:
Route 460 would be a new 55-mile interstate equivalent highway between Suffolk and Petersburg. The cost of the road is currently estimated at $1.5 billion, but some estimates go to $1.9 billion. The state’s taxpayers would have to pay at least $1 billion toward a project that VDOT wants private toll-road builders to construct under the Public-Private Transportation Act.
The PPTA isn’t living up to the promises made by its boosters. This amounts to a substantial public subsidy…
Remarkably, the existing Route 460 is predicted in VDOT’s Environmental Impact Study to be at Level of Service A (free-flowing) in 2030, except in small towns with traffic lights. Today, the highway carries fewer than 10,000 vehicles per day compared to average daily traffic volumes on I-64 on the Peninsula of 43,000 to 80,000 vehicles per day in the Williamsburg area.
Says Schwartz: “Roads like 460 have been pushed through the [Commonwealth Transportation Board] process by VDOT and would make an early claim to both the $2 billion in bond funding and the increases in fees, taxes and tolls in the Hampton Roads region. This will siphon money away from real congestion problems within the metropolitan areas of the state.”
-
There’s a New Tax-and-Spend Party in Town
The House and Senate conferees have pounded out their final compromise on the transportation package. There are two more obstacles to go: The Senate must approve the final version, which may or may not happen: Democrats and a handful of Republicans are still unhappy with key elements of the plan. And then the package goes to Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, who also has expressed his displeasure.
As compromise has succeeded compromise, and amendment has piled upon amendment, the legislation, to my mind, has gotten worse and worse. The most significant change in this latest iteration, according to a press release from the Speaker’s Office is that it relies even less upon the General Fund than previous versions to pay for roads. Total General Fund revenues amount to “consistently less than 1 percent in any given year – and actually declines as a percentage over time.”
In other words, the legislation requires increased taxes, levies, fines and fees from other sources. Here’s how it the new revenues stack up: (1) a statewide revenue stream reaching $600 million per year; (2) regional taxes of more than $400 million per year for Northern Virginia; (3) regional taxes of more than $200 million for Hampton Roads; and (4) a sweetener of $2.5 billion in bonds issued over an eight-year period.
We started the General Assembly session arguing whether Gov. Kaine’s proposal to increase statewide taxes by $1 billion revenue was too much. Now the putatively “anti-tax” Republicans are patting themselves on the back for a package of state and regional taxes, fees and fines totaling about $1.2 billion a year — and that’s before taking on $2.5 billion in debt. No wonder Kaine has been sitting quietly and “contributing nothing” throughout this process. The more the Republicans have talked, the richer they’ve made the tax-and-spend elements of the legislation.
I can only imagine that Republican legislators are so close to the process that they have lost all perspective. They haven’t noticed that they’ve moved backward, not forward. They may be able to insulate themselves against charges of “doing nothing” on transportation, but they also have to deal with the utter dismay of their small government constituents. Maybe there’s something I’m missing, but based on the documents provided by the Speaker’s Office itself, I am absolutely apalled.
HB 3202 does contain a couple of useful VDOT and land use reforms, but they only tinker on the margins of the problem. They don’t begin to un-do the damage created by the incoherent mix of tax revenues, or the shoveling of money into unaccountable regional transportation authorities. This entire process has wound up worse than I could ever imagine.
J.R. Hoeft over at BearingPoint, a solidly Republican blog, doesn’t sound any more enthusiastic than I am. If there are any Republicans out there who want to defend this legislation on the grounds of conservative/free market principles, as opposed to a panicky bid to save their nexts in the next election, I would like to hear from them.
